United States of America v. Kaci Anne-Rene Lima, a/k/a Kaci Anne-Rene Cackler

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KACI ANNE-RENE LIMA, a/k/a Kaci
Anne-Rene Cackler,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 26-5007
(D.C. No. 4:25-CR-00179-JFH-1)
(N.D. Okla.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, CARSON, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Kaci Anne-Rene Lima pleaded guilty to three counts of bank fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. She was sentenced to 24 months in prison. Ms. Lima
seeks to appeal her sentence, but the government has moved to enforce the appeal
waiver contained in her plea agreement. See United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315,
1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).
We will enforce an appeal waiver if (1) the appeal falls within the waiver’s
scope, (2) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal, and
(3) enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. See id.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 30, 2026
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 26-5007 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2026 Page: 1

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The government addresses all three Hahn factors in its motion. Ms. Lima
“takes no position” on the motion to enforce. Aplt. Resp. at 1. We do not consider
this to be an objection to the motion to enforce. See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d
1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that a reviewing court need not address
each Hahn factor if defendant does not make argument with respect to that factor).
We need not address Hahn based on Ms. Lima’s lack of position. But in any event
Ms. Lima’s appeal waiver is enforceable because: (1) her sentence does not exceed
the statutory maximum, and her intended appeal thus falls within the scope of her
waiver; (2) the plea agreement sets forth the waiver and states that it was knowing
and voluntary, and the district court addressed the waiver and voluntariness at the
plea hearing; and (3) there is no indication that the waiver would result in a
miscarriage of justice as set out in Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327.
The motion to enforce is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Appellate Case: 26-5007 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 04/30/2026 Page: 2

-- 2 of 2 --